> few students with poor parents (disproportionally people of color) will stay in shitty regular school.
I'm white and this was me. If it weren't for these programs, I'd either be in jail or working retail/fast food. Congratulations on provoking me, I'm going to take a long hiatus from HN now and go build something. I've changed my password to a randomly generated (ephemeral) string on this and my main account; I won't be back to contribute.
I mentioned that there are other places in the Book where this information is mentioned, but it's funny how the `?` is described in at least 3 places (your link plus my two other links), but the section you would expect most information about it, called "The ? operator for easier error handling" which is fully dedicated to explaining the operator, does not mention that fact.
My point, above all, is not tied to this specific example, by the way, hope you understand how an informal tutorial about the language does not replace a strict specification - and pointing out that such information is available somewhere if I look hard enough does not disprove anything.
I'm amazed by the hostility of these comments, including personal attacks, and by this post being flagged. The author isn't some nobody who just finished a boot camp, but a very skilled C hacker. He makes a good argument for the importance of portability, a topic that seldom comes up in the C/Rust discussions I've read.
Yes but we're talking about today. And C's smallness/simplicity means that bootstrapping on new architectures is straightforward. Meanwhile Rust needs 64bit, etc. just to build. Rust's early embrace of compile-time complexity (ZCA) means this will always be a fundamental problem for the language. In fact it's getting worse over time.
Ordering isn't the bottleneck at In n Out, it's the food made fresh, sometimes for custom orders. The menu itself couldn't be much simpler. The kids taking down the orders work quickly and are always at the end of the line. That they're friendly humans and not a confused AI is an added benefit.
On the other hand this should work for McDonalds, where nobody's expecting friendliness or much of anything; it's basically a feed trough.
That's the great thing about math: It doesn't care how sincerely you believe that 6 and 9 are the same number. In other words, the kind of game you're talking about can only go on for so long before cold reality makes itself known.
I've worked in newsrooms and disagree with this saintly image of truth-seekers. Yes, the rank and file reporters are not looking to grind an axe; even if they were, they'd be too busy to do it. The well-known writers have huge egos and strong opinions. The editors are even worse.
Also, please don't cast aspersions like "only seems accurate" and "conspiracy theories." There is no conjecture in this editorial: It's somebody's opinion about recent, real developments in major newspapers.
Don't they need to sell with a "warranty" to get the higher prices?
In the US market there are some power sellers who say 2 year warranty and get big prices. Meanwhile while I was selling 1 as a non-prof seller I got tons of questions of "can I return it" and "what is the warranty" and two times my item was bid up to the stratosphere by non paying biders. Finally I listed it buy it now only and eventually a no fuss buyer bought it for half the price of the prof-sellers.
My point is, ebay prices don't always tell the whole story.
People focus on the password because it's the only part of the story they can relate to or understand. Orange County Rep. Katie Porter:
> "I've got a stronger password than 'solarwinds123' to stop my kids from watching too much YouTube on their iPad ... You and your company were supposed to be preventing the Russians from reading Defense Department emails!"
Do I think most private companies could defend against Double Dragon or Lazarus or Fancy Bear? No, if a state level adversary is attacking you and the payoff is that good, you are going to get popped.
But a strong posture makes it harder, which means they throw more at you and you have a chance of picking up on the attack. Best case, anyways. Worst case, you get to testify to Congress that your security measures were top notch and industry leading. That sounds a shit ton better than “we left a screen door open and didn’t notice for months.”
She's wrong to imply that if only SolarWinds had followed her iPad password policy, the attack would have been stopped. And she's mistaken about Orion's use case, which has nothing to do with email security.
And while Russia conducted this attack, I'm tired of the Russian scarecrow: SolarWinds' job here has nothing to do with Russia.
But mostly I'm jaded by ambitious SoCal pols neglecting their districts to score easy points on national issues.
> She's wrong to imply that if only SolarWinds had followed her iPad password policy, the attack would have been stopped.
I don't think she was implying that at all. She was highlighting that if they couldn't even do a basic thing like employing stronger, more complex passwords - how could they defend against Russians reading DoD emails.
And by China, and by the US and probably a bunch of other actors.
I mean, software is far too complicated in our current rube goldberg tower of abstractions, and the asymmetry favours the attacker (only have to be lucky once, etc).
Until a few generations have grown up with software, I'm not sure this is going to improve (although in that case, we've probably solved climate change, so that would be good).
My laptop? My OpenBSD router? Very unlikely anyone has attacked it. I’ve had boring jobs and have boring interests.
Do I think the Russians, Iranians, or any major foreign adversary have a 0-day they could use against my systems if I suddenly got a top secret clearance and clocked in as more interesting? Absolutely.
I don't think this cliched "I'm not interesting" logic makes sense. At scale, a lot of "non-interesting" stuff becomes interesting. Or a way to find a needle in a haystack. Why wait until it's urgent to focus on a particular person? We all are aware that the US intelligence services operate this way, right? I can't think of a reason why others wouldn't.
The discussion above focuses on targeted operations by state intelligence. The CIA/FBI wouldn’t run around using 0-days on everyone’s box because the risk of discovery would be too high.
I do, however, agree with you in part: I’m sure that I have a lengthy profile built from passive monitoring. Heck, I’ve googled “tor project” so I know I’m in a database.
Everything is about relationships. It makes no sense to "target" someone for being suspicious up front, because when they know they are interested in you, what they want to find out is who you interact with and how. So ideally, they (any data analyst) want everybody in their database. Then they do queries when they are looking for something.
And looking at what has been public, in the news, it seems like it isn't that unusual to break into and scarf up someone else's database in its entirety, without any fancy "0-day" exploits. Case in point, the US Office of Personnel Management had everything compromised, basically all the information the US government possessed about everyone with a security clearance. Probably it will never be publicized how many spies were lost, let alone other damage.
Is that even a question? There are many known markets for zero-day exploits against most OS's and software; that means whoever has the money has the ability to own whatever they want until it's detected and patched.
I'm white and this was me. If it weren't for these programs, I'd either be in jail or working retail/fast food. Congratulations on provoking me, I'm going to take a long hiatus from HN now and go build something. I've changed my password to a randomly generated (ephemeral) string on this and my main account; I won't be back to contribute.